Memeorandum

November 09, 2006

Mission Accomplished At The Times

Adam Nagourney gloats about the success of the Times' September Surprise:

Democrats Turned War Into an Ally

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
This article was reported by Adam Nagourney, Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny and written by Mr. Nagourney.

On a warm night in mid-September, Representative Rahm Emanuel, the
Illinois Democrat leading his party’s campaign to win back the House,
stood in front of I Ricchi, a stylish Italian restaurant in downtown
Washington, screaming at an aide who happened to be in his sight.

Why, he demanded, had Iraq fallen off the front pages and the
evening news, replaced by President Bush’s weeklong commemoration of
the Sept. 11 anniversary? How could Democrats
win if this unpopular war was fought uncovered? As he headed in for
dinner, he pronounced himself as despondent about his party’s hopes as
he had been all year.

Two weeks later, the political world had turned, propelled by new
bursts of violence in Iraq, new questions about incompetence in the
waging of the war in Iraq, and an intelligence report suggesting that
the American invasion had actually worsened the terrorist threat.

"Suggesting" is artfully chosen; the Times was less cautious when they broke this leak of a National Intelligence Estimate (1, 2) on Sept 24:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

by MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark
assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has
found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq
has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the
overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

Thank heaven for intelligence agencies - who would have guessed that a failure by the jihadists in Iraq would set them back? Of course, withdrawing US troops may not be the best way to bring about that jihadist failure, but the Times report overlooked that subtlety.

Here is another quote from the original Times story:

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

Really? Compared to what? The NIE made no attempt to establish a baseline. For example, prior to 2003, jihadists had been inspired by the US troops based in Saudia Arabia as a bulwark against Saddam Hussein, and by US-led UN Sanctions on Iraq, alleged to be killing 5,000 Iraqi babies a month. How would those two rallying cries have held up if in 2003 the US had settled for attempting to re-tighten "the box" containing Saddam Hussein?

The NIE did not attempt to address alternative history, but said this:

...Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist
movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and
fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense
of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and
sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim
majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most
Muslims— - all of which jihadists exploit.

The NIE also noted that Iraq is a useful training ground for jihadists.

As he headed in for dinner, he pronounced himself as despondent about his party’s hopes as he had been all year.

Yadda, yadda, yadda...two weeks later, the political world had turned, propelled by new bursts of violence in Iraq, new questions about incompetence in the waging of the war in Iraq,and an intelligence report suggesting that the American invasion had actually worsened the terrorist threat.

As it was, it left the impression that the second paragraph was mere serendipity.

Excerpted and linked. In all of the "self-inflicted wounds" post-mortems I've read, the thing that no one seems to be mentioning is the Bush administration's failure to go after the major media for divulging classified information. The still have two years to do it but don't hold your breath.

Ultimately in a Democracy we voters deserve to get all the information. The Bush administration did us no favor by supressing the NIE that it perceived harmful to its political interests.

Intelligence is one area where the Bush administration had been in the past quite successful in spinning its alternative version of the reality - a version which remained at odds with the escalating violence and the rising US troop deaths (which IIRC were about 100 in October).

We deserve to have an honest dailog about Iraq. The Bush administration never cared for one - either before the war or after the war.

It's rather hard to have a meaningful conversation when one side is drumbeating Halliburton, war for oil, Cheney, Hitler, digital brownshirts, he betrayed this country, our soldier are terrorrizing women and children, as bad as nazi's and pol pot, and have you heard about Abu Ghraib?

Face it, the Dems and the MSM weren't interested in a discussion, still aren't.

By now everybody knows that the invasion was about nothing except creating a rallying point for a weak and duplicitous presidency. Most republicans have known this almost from 2003. They simply didn't care about the truth. What they cared about was using the fear of weak-kneed Americans to bolster this very aggresive presidency so that they could get what they figured was there part of the bargain. For some it was the appointment of supremes to limit abortion. For others it was simply to lower their taxes at any cost to anybody.

Few will forget that the religious right was the principle enabler of this presidency and this horrible group of ignorance-celebrating neanderthals will soon be barred from meaningful political discussion. No need to pitty them. They did it to themselves. If one lives in a state where belief in some arbitrary assertion is given greater weight than what is observable and falsifiable then one is doomed to unwittingly create the conditions for ones demise.

But the folks that you and I criticise here, at least most of them, will likely keep clinging to beliefs (of all kinds) because they are too weak to partake in self examination let alone a nonbiased examination of the world and universe around them.

Jack:By now everybody knows that the invasion was about nothing except creating a rallying point for a weak and duplicitous presidency.

Wasn't it prescient then of Bush to have persuaded Congress to pass a resolution in 1998 making regime change in Iraq national policy and to have ghost written all that stuff by Dem leaders emphasizing what a threat Saddam was to our national security?

Jack--try this on for size before you get too disappointed. Pro-war Lieberman is now the most powerful man in Congress. He's a Dem but very pro-war.If the party crosses him on this he can switch and take the majority status with him. (Better that he should be the key player than that stupid putz Chafee.)

Yeah, pofarmer, can you believe it Bushitoer let there be an election and forgot to set the Diebold machine so that it would only vote Republican.

Jack, from Kelo to affirmative action to gay marriage, whenever the people have had a chance to vote on it, they are voting conservative. If you think that Chafee was more pro-war than Lieberman, or Webb more anti-war than Allen, you are in for an eye-opener.

One last thing, Jack. We are in a real war, one that we will be fighting for decades and all but the truest loonies know that..Now that they are in power, the Dems will act more responsibily for they have no other choice. Before that, they could play another tune for idiots.

Yeah Jack, and next we'll all start whining how we all need to move to Canada, 'cause it's just so unbearable to be living in the same country as Pelosi... give it a rest moron.

To be honest,(something liberals have a hard time with) this blog will blossom as we watch the moonbats scream for impeachment and the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, while the Democrats fall back to their plan of talking tough but doing nothing. Watch as we go through 2 years of classic liberal double speak... I guess they still have to give the moonbats hope. But maybe by '08, the NYT will be out of business... at least the traitor business.

It amazes me that the nutroots actually believe the results of this election reflect a mandate for radical change. They've convinced themselves that the republicans who lost were beaten by democrats who share their "values".

The reality based community is really a cartoon based community, they stand for nothing and fall for everything.

I think we give Democrats too much credit when we assume they believe the things they say about the so-called "war." They chose a strategy to undermine Bush and the new government in Iraq in order to accomplish what they just did, and as disgraceful as it was, it worked. We can trumpet the "new media" all we want, but their allies in the old media unquestionably made a difference. Personally, I blame Bush for not fighting them as aggressively as they deserved.

And let's not forget...

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”
W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

" He has used such [chemical] weapons before against soldiers and civilians, including his own people. We have no doubt that if left unchecked he would do so again..."
W.J. Clinton, December 19, 1998

You can beleive anything you want. Doesn't make you not an idiot. BTW, I posted a question down below to dear Liddy. And I'll expand it to you, pete, whoever wants to answer. It's easy to be in opposition.

What does he stand for? He stands for understanding the people who hate us, one can not reach common ground without understanding what is necessary for us to give up for a perceived enemy to like us. We need to find out what it is about us that causes so much hate and we need to change it. It is that simple.

Jack: Before you pronounce on the stupidity, or otherwise, of the President you yourself should at least learn how to spell simple words like 'pity' and 'aggressive'; oh, and whether the word you meant o use is 'principle' or 'principal'. Failure to do so tends to undermine your standing in the matter of stupidity pronouncements. In fact, it makes you look like the moron. Have a nice day.

"What does he stand for? He stands for understanding the people who hate us, one can not reach common ground without understanding what is necessary for us to give up for a perceived enemy to like us."

They don't like,liberals,communists,gays,Christians,Hindus,Buddhists,Zoroastrians,ancester worshippers,any who do not regard Allah as the one true God,democracy,the rule of common law,adulterers,uppity women,revealing dress code,popular music,alcohol,drugs,lending money for interest,those who don't submit,I'm sure there's an orange jump suit in there for you somewhere Jack.

Patton,
That is why Pelosi is redefining the definitions,"Situation Solved" sounds so much better than "Cut and Run".
What is amusing is that the respect they Democrats claim they will "regain" on the world stage will be as nothing,everyone will be sniggering and laughing up their sleaves.
Any future Democrat president will face a nuclear armed regional super power ,Iran,and an economic giant China,both of whom will know that America can be beaten.You will have lost face in the eyes of two cultures where saving face is all important.

Given the billions of dollars, the time, the effort, the comission of US diplomatic capital, why on earth would Iraq NOT be an issue in this campaign or something worthy of coverage in the New York Times? Hm? And why wouldn't the US Congress failure to provide anything in the way of meaningful oversight over the policy fiasco presided over by Bush be a major issue? And, finally, given the opportunity to report on problems in our Iraqi misadventure outlined in an NIE, why wouldn't the NYRT do that? Heck. I think any news outlet -- and that includes Fox News -- would report on the leaked content of an NIE, to the extent conclusions relate to policy. If you want to complain about timing, stick to Foley, where there is at least an argument.

Complaining about the information you receive from biased media , in the end, is really stupid. The active thinkers here can glean the information and chuck the bias. The real problem with bias in new stories, is not in the information provided, but the information concealed.

And, finally, Iraq touches a lot of people, whether you like it or not, and those people do not always like to be touched. I have friends in the guard called up to serve there. My brother is quite happy he is in the naval reserve, because he is unlikely to get sent. A couple of weeks ago, getting Mexican in a tiny Georgia town, I overheard Momma explaining why Daddy had to leave the country, and why they would not be seeing Uncle Bobby again.

You don't escape Iraq, even if the NYT puts the story on page 2.

By the way, reports of the death of this blog are greatly exaggerated, though it does load a little slow sometimes.

If we are to take them at their words..that the liberation of Iraq is actually causing terrorism and we can't win and must turn the country over to the terrorists, I would think immediate redeployment to Okinawa is in order.

I would think President Bush would invite Pelosi and Reid to fly with him to Iraq so they could personnely tell the Iraqi government that we are leaving, then have a big press conference in Baghdad where Pelosi and Reid lay out the withdrawal strategy and turn the country over to the terrorists.

Its a short one day trip and it would be over. The troops could be home by Christmas if Pelosi and Reid have any backbone to live up to their convictions.

Why would Pelosi and Reid ask ONE MORE soldier to die for a mistake???

The North and West want to appease terrorism. It's their cities that will be hit when the jihadis come back. Maybe it's time to reconsider secession. They might gladly let the South go this time. At any rate, they sure wouldn't put up much of a fight this time around. Then we Southerners wouldn't need to shed any tears when the inevitable occurs.

ISTM that the deteriorating situation in Iraq has been the default front page over the past 6 months - only displaced momentarily by other "outrages" like Foley, or Kerry's stand up comedy, or some Republican strangling his mistress or stealing the pentagon blind, or even "sillier" things like the suspension of habius corpus and warrentless wiretapping.

You want to blame the times for getting us "back on topic"? Good luck with that.

I think the next couple of months will be very interesting on this not yet dead blog.
We have the Libby trial in January and we can opine as to when that kerfuffle is shut down. Now we can do whatever we want re: dems; what are they going to do win both houses of Congress? Oh they already did that so President Bush doesn't have to fear any political payback. After Lewinsky is when Clinton got pardon happy -so I say do what you want Mr. President and get your veto pen ready to smackdown any really goofy dem ideas.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's most powerful leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in the congressional elections a victory for Iran.

Dems shrug. Hey, Bush is the biggest threat!

But, there are other potential consequences to perceived US weakness...

Israel Official: Strike on Iran Possible

Nov 10 9:01 AM US/Eastern

By AMY TEIBEL
Associated Press Writer

The deputy defense minister suggested Friday that Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's disputed nuclear program _ the clearest statement yet of such a possibility from a high-ranking official.

The only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner. (Especially when their ideology actually lost). Emmanuel used his Clintonian triangulation to fit the candidates to the district he was after. So he chose pseudo-Republicans running as Democrats in Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, etc. These guys are really conservatives. I'll give it to the Dems, they played to win not maintain some type of ideological purity. If the right doesn't recognize this, they are in for many losing election cycles.

I sorta knew you guys wouldn't take the ball. You play defense better than offense. I wonder what those voters who voted for democrats will think when the Iraqi war continues as before? Who will they punish this time?

Us "taking the ball" would involve defunding or impeachment - both of which seem a bit over the top. Taking responsibility without power is really stupid - ask the generals who refused the Central Command when they were told that Rummy was still goint to micromanage the generals in the field directly.

Sorry TT,the augeries are not good,the Democrats used the blunt instrument of funding to get hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese murdered.The Democrats state that the Iraq campaign is illegal and immoral,how on earth can they keep funding that which they oppose?

"I mean, the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. ... So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq ..."
Nancy Pelosi.

LINCOLN, Neb. -- George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.

Sue,
Pelosi,McGovern,what part of we are "cutting and running" is TT not picking up from the leadership?

To remove US troops by June,withdrawals will have to begin now,when they have gone,what exactly will congress be funding? At least they could let the engineers dig the mass burial pits before they leave.

WASHINGTON - Democratic control of Congress, public dislike for the
Iraq war and the departure of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld could open the door for a policy shift in the conflict, but early maneuvering for the 2008 presidential election could slam the door shut.

For politics, these democrats will allow the war to continue? But, forgetting that amazing fact (that the author of the article doesn't seem to care about), why on earth would ending the "conflict" slam the door shut in 08 for the democrats?

Of course,there is a difference between the Vietnanmese who chose to drown quietly trying to escape and a Sunni who has lost his family to a death sqad,the latter is likely to celebrate his diversity by revenge,

Except for the warnings against oversight hearings so that Dems can figure out what the hell is really going on, I might buy this bs.

What do you mean? Really going on? We know what is going on. A situation that needs to be resolved. However Pelosi decides to resolve it, she has over half the voters in the last election breathing down her neck. If it is truly a lost cause, a wasted effort, a situation to be resolved, bring them home immediately. They are the hypocrites I think they are if they do anything less.

With unmistakable pride, President Nixon appeared on TV to claim that he had finally won all the terms needed to achieve what he had sought for four years: 'Peace with honor.'... The ultimate vagueness of the settlement is that it enables the contesting parties to read it as they see fit.
Time Magazine - From Paris Peace in Nine Chapters
Feb. 5, 1973.

A bit of revisionist history, PUK? We were out of vietnam in 1973 after the ARVN had sucessfully blunted the 1972 Year of the Rat offensive (with the substantial support of US airpower). No one, from Gerald Ford on down, wanted to reinvade in 1975 when the NVA repeated that offensive. The NVA had planned for a 2 year campaign in 1975 - it only took two months.

A "Nixon Victory" in Iraq ought to be acceptable to everyone, n'est pas? What is the alternative - perpetual occupation?

To expand on that thought I had...that they used the War in Iraq for political gain to begin with makes them the hypocrites I knew they were to begin with. By keeping our troops there after the election is over, for political reasons, makes them diabolical.

Removing funding left the South Vietnamses with NO US airpower,supplies were cut,which is why when North Vietnam,when the NV broke the treaty and invaded,SV fell.
Like a dog with a dirty old bone,your party is going to dig it up again.You must be proud.

The fact is that they perpetrated a fraud on the electorate by hooking up conservative democrats in order to get the uber left into power. John Fund was correct in calling it “the new election fraud”. Washington has had enough dishonesty, and this was most likely the greatest fraud in history, and a testimony to the character of the Democrats who as we said over and over again would do anything to regain power. This in comparison to George Bush who withstood his beliefs and principles (like it or not), and didn’t budge even though it contributed to the loss of power. Therein lies the difference.

Believe me it won’t be long before America discovers in horror what they wrought.

Yes, PUK, but the two million dead Cambodians sure showed the Republicans. Democrats know how to get people killed.

You have to admit after the Democrats allowing the North Vietnamese to kill a Million South vietnamese and send millions more to re-education camps, death camps, etc.
And after the further death due to the Democrat strategy, of two million Cambodians, PEACE WAS AT HAND!

Concentration camps tend to be very peaceful places you know...look at Iraq under Saddam, it was very quiet and peaceful and never on the news as Saddam killed a couple million and sent 1/6 of the population scurrying for their lives...BUT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO SEE IT ON THE NEWS.

--------quote-------
McGovern will present his recommendations before the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 62-member group led by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee.

"The best way to reduce this insurgency is to get the American forces out of there," McGovern said. "That's what's driving this insurgency."

McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq.

McGovern's plan _ as written in his new book, "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" _ also calls for the United States to remove hired mercenaries from the region, push for the removal of British troops and establish a temporary transitional force, similar to police, made up of Muslims from the region.

"I've talked with a lot of senior officers _ generals and admirals _ in preparation for this book, that say this war can't be won, that the problems now are not military problems," McGovern told reporters. "There isn't going to be any decisive victory in Iraq."
---------endquote--------

Patton- just one example-how many Iraqi army units are fully trained and ready to roll.

I mean-no Shiite infested ready to betray corps-but really ready to go troops? What are the problems encountered in training them-besides the fact Parsons built a literally shit-filled headquarters (which we only know about b/c of the Inspector's office-which Repubs terminated in one of their last acts).

Any idea? The Repubs never bothered to ask-so how the hell would Dems know?

But if you're going to plan to win this thing-these are the sorts of things you might like to know.

There is a good bit of difference between defunding ARVN and defunding the US Army and Marines on the ground. Reintroducing US Air power in 1975 may have delayed the inevitable, but that is all it would have done.

As to our options now in Iraq, ISTM we flood the country with troops (that we will have to find somewhere) in an attempt to squash the insurgency and directly control more real estate – or we try to speed up the “Vietnamazation – er, the “Iraqization”

It is quite interesting how close GWB's - “We're going to help this government become a government that can defend, govern, and sustain itself, and an ally in the war on terror.” - sounds to Nixon’s “Peace With Honor”. Both are vague enough to be invoked under a variety of factual situations. GWB has already declared victory once – I don’t see anything stopping him from doing it again.

That actually gives me some hope that we will be out of Iraq sooner rather than later. I doubt even GWB is expecting to fund the Iraqi army and police indefinitely, once they reach some squishy level of readiness.

Don Says "How about when Repubs won office on their promises to downsize government?
""

SEE DON, NOW YOUR CHANGING THE RULES.

When Republicans try to reduce the rate at which the Democrats want government to grow, the left would be screaming that it was a huge cut - except if it was something like Defense.

So if Democrats project that government should grow by 14 % per year and Republicans say NO, on 7% growth, then indeed by Liberals standards Republicans CUT government.

SO REPUBLICANS HAVE CERTAINLY CUT THE AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT WE WOULD HAVE HAD IF THE LEFT WAS IN CHARGE. Just look at the lefts perscription drug plan which was THREE times more expensive, thus a huge Republican CUT occurred from the lefts projected growth.

Don says: """Patton- just one example-how many Iraqi army units are fully trained and ready to roll."""

You mean trained by the terrorizing, torturing American Pol Pots?

Are you saying that the Republicans would not allow the Democrats to go to Iraq and visit these units, talk to the Iraqis, etc.? Are you saying Democrats have been banned from CENTCOM headquarters where they could have sat in on daily briefings?